The more fresh air in here the better.....

I used to think the same way. My favorite saying used to be "a good fence makes a good neighbor". Now my favorite saying is "a good handshake makes a better neighbor". And those good handshakes have led to an area that was once just 121 acres of management to 1,250 acres that is all adjoining and cooperatively managed by all us neighbors involved........since 1993 this "neighborhood" has put in 28 record book entries..........compared to none in that area prior to us cooperating.

May want to think twice about your approach to your views of your neighbors. And remember........to have great friends and neighbors YOU have to be a GREAT friend and neighbor FIRST!!

Just curious Dew or the new guys or anybody for that matter since everbody is in a good mood, how does management in counties made up of all farms and leases differ from the counties making up the HOOSIER NF with a lot of state ground as well. Same regs and rules different ballgame with unlimited access. Call me crazy but I'm a public land hunting nut and my glass is half full. It's what I enjoy and the views are nice. But cooperation is at best a short term affair. Thoughts?

As Andy Griffith used to say....

"this just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser".

It shore looks like a tough job to me Ope.

My views on this may rattle some feathers......but what's new about that... LOL!!

Here is the difference in that scenario in my mind...

1)Most hunters now attracted to hunting public land do so because they didn't and don't think far out into the future and it has bit them. They had farms to hunt.......erased most of the resource since they used it like public land, had a shallow relationship with the farmer just like they would have had with a Public Land Employee and had conversations with the farmer only when they had to, and treated the farm as a resource that would "self heal" from their purging of wildlife and neglect of the relationship of the land owner. They had "public land" mentality that is laced with "just take from the resource, and don't invest back". This type of attitude just doesn't stop usually in hunting either.... it is a "life script" that permeates everything they do, often leading to poor goals in life, poor education, poor job, poor finances, etc, etc. And then they wake up too late when someone that cares more about the resource, cares more about the relationship with the landowner, has more finances to lease it up and take care of it better since they have more foresight into what it takes to "have a better life" shows up. Harsh words.....but real words. So if you live in a county full of public land....you literally are attracting MORE these days of the ones that have lost farms and " $100 dollar leases" due to their own self inflicted demise. You are in an area that short sighted people will flock to since it is all they have left........and have NO INSIGHT WHATSOEVER in the gains of changing their ways. They are governed by the rules you put in front of them only...... it's easier that way........and then "can be someone else's fault" when things don't go how they want.

2) Areas that are full of farms and leases these days are starting to be filled by those that want to take care of the resource.....they want to work with their neighbors since they know the value of a good relationship.......they invest in the resource and hobby year round since it is valuable to them...... THEY CARE. They also have a "life script" that cares more than just about hunting and deer, they care about goals, the future, relationships, having a good job, taking care of finances, and know that INVESTMENT usually has REWARDS ..... and what we get out of life, hunting, anything in life that is super rewarding isn't going to be experienced by "just following government made regulations". So.... in these areas it is becoming more widespread to find those "like minded deer hunting goal driven" people as your neighbor.....AND THEY ARE ADVERTISING THEMSELVES AS THOSE THAT WANT TO BE A BETTER NEIGHBOR AND NOT ADVERTISING THEMSELVES AS "I DONT CARE WHAT MY NEIGHBOR DOES".


In short......... "birds of a feather are flocking together" and if you are in a county laced with public ground... the birds you are attracting are now being FORCED to flock in your neighborhood...and their habits don't leave them.

Fellas,
we have to do this ourselves. You cannot legislate good deer hunting anymore than you can legislate jobs, closed borders, healthcare...we have to do it ourselves. If we just quit taking too many deer in area's we see less and take a few more if we're seeing plenty...we take all control from this run-away-train. I'm doing my part. I love having deer in the freezer but I haven't taken a deer the last 2 seasons because I've seen so few! I sit there for a couple days seeing zero deer in stands that I used to see maybe 8 deer in one sit...then I see a couple does or a small buck and I'm thinking AWESOME! But if I shoot it, then what?
This doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out. BTW, I'm hunting a county that allows 4 antlerless deer. EHD hit hard a couple years ago in our area and the DNR KNOWS IT TOO...still allowing 4 antlerless. Just proves my point:You can't legislate this crap.
One more story, last summer I took my son to a private lake we hadn't fished in quite a while. In the past we have never caught much there so we didn't expect much. We started pounding bluegills so big you couldn't get your hand around them. We were icing them down and licking our chops. We got about 20 in the cooler and I said " Hey Kid, this is a blast! Lets keep 20 and release the rest? We'll come back another day and catch some more." He agreed. I've seen pictures on here of guys ice fishing and it looked like they cleaned 100 panfish... It's legal, but is it smart? Even if you're going to eat every one of them, we need to leave some for another day.

That is true. I believe the surveys asking for hunter feedback the DNR does are scientific. I think it is great that you are planning on doing a scientific survey ... most groups will not attempt such a thing because of the cost associated.

When will your survey be sent out? I assume it will be a random process to include all hunters of the state? Of course it will ... what am I thinking ... It couldnt be a scientific survey and only go to members of the IWDHM.

Look forward to seeing the survey and the results.

Double B great point. There is a big difference. The big issue is hunter access. If anywhere there is hunter access, and you basically have unlimited antlerless harvest, there is going to be some bad apples that are going to overharvest in a given area. If there is not hunter access, it doesn't matter the amount of tags that are allowed, make it 100, if no one can hunt the deer will still overpopulate whether that be true overpopulation above carrying capacity of the habitat, which is very rare in Indiana, or social overpopulation, where the deer are costing someone a buck ($). So we have to guard against those that will without any kind of management plan kill every doe they can in a specific area. If a guy hunts 10 different counties and goes out of state and only kills one in each place, not a problem. However the guy that only has one farm, goes out opening day of gun season and kills four deer, and it happens more than being stated, then he goes home and remains apathetic to what is actually going on with the herd until next year, then that is a problem. If we just have one of those guys, or worse a couple every square mile, then you can see the exponential factor involved. So even if everyone within a couple miles does practice sound management, these bad apples can decimate the herd. I believe someone mentioned earlier there are 10 +/- per square mile. So if just one every other square mile killed every deer they could legally in a 8 bonus county, wouldn't take very many years before there is a severe reduction in the herd for everyone, hunters, wildlife watchers, managers, everyone.

Exactly...and all GOOD surveys show the numbers and how folks voted...Not some guys reading results on a video and never posting the hard numbers!!! There's No creditability in that method.

Let's try to move past the survey issue if we can. Organizations and groups try to get input in whatever form possible and that input is always subject to questioning and second guessing. No one, probably not even the DNR has an absolute ability to get a perfect, all encompassing survey. So, everything is always left to a bit of interpretation. I've seen this before. The IDHA's surveys were no good, the IBA surveys were biased, other website surveys were biased some governmental agency surveys were biased. Certainly we all recognize the limitations of such things, so is it possible to try to find one or two issues that almost everyone, because it will never be everyone, can agree on and work towards accomplishing something. Picking apart everything is just what is wrong with hunters, its detrimental to the resources and to the heritage itself.

So, if all the groups were to identify a couple of issues like a wish to have less pressure on the deer herd or getting something accomplished to enable the DNR to fill their vacancies or retain the control over the deer management plan that we all know is being effected more and more every day by the legislature and non hunting special interests.

Of course there can be and usually are questions surrounding every survey ..... but if a survey qualifies as scientific or not is not one of them.

They either are .... or they arent.

I thought it was a great idea to try and get the DNR to fill the positions prior to lobbying for quota changes ..... but that bubble was quickly burst.

Now that I know the idea is to get a scientific survey and feedback of the grassroots deer hunters across our fine state before lobbying for changes I think that is a pretty decent idea. Not as good as filling the positions first but not terrible.

Looking forward to seeing the survey and the results.

We are not trying to take away your hunting days, or change your seasons, really it wouldn't take drastic change to fix the main problem. However, we are getting push back from hunters that just want to argue and attempt by twisting every single word or statement to discredit us. Some are just afraid of what they may lose individually, some have financial motives, as they have a deer related business and want to use the crisis to their advantage to say if they improve the habitat on you farm the deer will magically thrive. Guys, I have planted the best cover and food for quail on my farm, but you know what, there is not a quail. Without mommy and daddy quail, never will be any no matter how good the habitat. All wildlife in Indiana is in danger guys, times are changing. Like the conservationists of the past, if we don't have the foresight to see the forest for the trees and care about more than just our own egos and self-gratification, we will lose what we have and future generations will never experience it.

I came to this site to attempt to bridge the gap with the IDHA and IBA to hopefully work together on the aforementioned issues. I think some see that and will spread the word. However, as I have said before, we in leadership at the IWDHM Group are spending hours on this every day without getting one red cent or kick back in any way. We are doing it for our own future generations and yours. I swear on my own life. That is it. However, with my own limited time resources, we cannot keep up with this back and forth on every little detail, and arguing or detailed discussion on this narrow point of view or that one. We are sorry if you are scared your are going to lose something, but if you just take off your blinders for a minute and see the forest guys, please. So with that I am going to leave you all to hash it out. I AND THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO CONCENTRATE ON OUR MISSION. I would pray, that all of you take the time and energy you are expending here to just write or email your state legislature reps and the Governor, and express: you are seeing less deer, if you are, and your are concerned about the management of the resource and you want them to look into DNR funding and you want the overharvest to stop. We can be a powerful force together. IF WE CAN JUST AGREE ON SOME VERY BASIC IDEAS. If we keep up the petty details, the people that make the decisions just look at us (all sportsmen and organizations) and laugh, and say they are not a voice to be heard, but Farm Bureau is collective and strong and vote and saying we want one thing. DEER REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION. Think about it guys. Good luck, Good hunting, and God Bless. Gary A Walters, RN, Staff/Board of Directors IWDHM Group.

Sorry I was attempting to cut and past a post, and your forum is making it difficult so only the second half portion came through. I am going to attempt to post in two pieces.

I have been a proponent of non electronic mailed surveys from the start. These need to be generated by the IDNR since they have the addresses and such of the hunting public that are purchasing licenses.

It was proven last go round in the last collection of surveys by the IDNR; a Purdue Survey Analyst that looked over the electronic data indicated that respondents were responding to the survey more than once... And one individual responded in excess of 500 times. <<<<

Now, here it is in a nutshell. IWDHM Group is: "IWDHM is committed to advocating for the health of our deer herd and the preservation of our hunting heritage for future generations." We and almost 99% of our followers are seeing overharvest of does happening pretty regular where hunters have access, all over the state. Yes there are many areas that it doesn't. However, for those areas that haven't been overharvested because of limited or no access, those bad apples have been concentrated other places. There are reports especially from northern Indiana, where guys are reporting they used to see 100 (literally) deer in a week, and now they are hard pressed to find a track in their woodlots they have permission on. This is not just one or two reports but thousands guys. If you are not seeing that great, but it is happening, and more than most realize. Are there other factors, such as EHD, coyote depredation, habitat loss, yes, of course, but what can we do something about. Trigger control, and if we can't do that with education, which we can't in a short time, then there must be some regulation changes.

Why does the DNR allow all these permits if they report that less than 10 percent kill 4 or more deer. Because the farming lobby has taken over deer management and control of our DNR and they have to post these numbers to show the legislature that they are doing something to appease the farm lobby to prevent the legislature from taking over management. There have actually been bills written in the past to allow unlimited deer harvest year round, which is a fact guys. Luckily they failed. Don't mean they won't come back. Also, politicians wanting to portray a balanced budget and saving the citizen's money ,though it is a shell game really, have locked up funds we have provided for wildlife management and hamstrung the DNR.

We are not trying to take away your hunting days, or change your seasons, really it wouldn't take drastic change to fix the main problem. However, we are getting push back from hunters that just want to argue and attempt by twisting every single word or statement to discredit us. Some are just afraid of what they may lose individually, some have financial motive, as they have a deer related business and want to use the crisis to their advantage to say if they improve the habitat on your farm the deer will magically thrive. Guys, I have planted the best cover and food for quail on my farm, but you know what, there is not quail. Without mommy and daddy quail, never will be any no matter how good the habitat. All wildlife in Indiana is in danger guys, times are changing. Like the conservationists of the past, if we don't have the foresight to see the forest for the trees and care about more than just our own ego's and self-gratification, we will lose what we have and future generations will never experience it.

I came to this site to attempt to bridge the gap with the IDHA and IBA to hopefully work together on the aforementioned issues. I think some see that and will spread the word. However, as I have said before, we in leadership at the IWDHM Group are spending hours on this every day without getting one red cent or kick back in any way. We are doing it for our own future generations and yours. I swear on my own life. That is it. However, with my own limited time resources, we cannot keep up with the back and forth on every little detail, and arguing or detailed discussion on this narrow point of view or that one. We are sorry if you are scared you are going to lose something, but if you just take off your blinders for a minute and see the forest guys, please. So with that I am going to leave you all to hash it out. I AND THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO CONCENTRATE ON OUR MISSION. I would pray, that all of you take the time to just write your state legislature reps and the governor, and express: you are seeing less deer if you are and you are concerned about the management of the resource and you want them to look into DNR funding and you want the overharvest to stop. We can be a powerful force together. IF WE CAN JUST AGREE ON SOME VERY BASIC IDEAS. If we keep up the petty details, the people that make the decision just look at us and laugh, and say they are not a voice to be heard, but Farm Bureau is collective and strong and vote and are saying we want this one thing. Deer Reduction. Think about it guys. Good luck, Good Hunting, and God Bless. Gary A Walters, RN, Staff/Board of Directors IWDHM Group

There, sorry for the confusing posts. Don't know why it giving me so much trouble. Anyway read last three posts in order and that my last message to you all and I thank you for your time folks. Again sorry for troubles posting to your system.

There, sorry for the confusing posts. Don't know why it giving me so much trouble. Anyway read last three posts in order and that my last message to you all and I thank you for your time folks. Again sorry for troubles posting to your system.

Gary - curious as to how many members the IWDHM has at this time. Not the FB page .... the group.

Its kind of like golf .... nobody shoots about a 78. Its an exact number.

I love IWDHM's drive and passion, the energy is a GREAT thing for hunters...however yes some have concerns raised over issues including but not limited to: unwarranted bannings, back and forth on issues at times, biasness, professionalism...

I would venture to say Gary no good moral being that is a member of any of the hunting forums here for Indiana would degrade your heart, desire and will to make things better for future generations...because honestly I think if you frequent a forum for hunting you've already proven you are not an average joe hunter or weekend warrior...you care.

The woods and hunting are a way of life for us, and we desire to have that ability to enjoy it for our whole lives (till the Lord calls us home) and we want the same for the future of our kids and their kids and their kids-kids. It is this very reason I still support IWDHM, despite being banned...despite at times questioning operations or it's professionalism...or unfounded blanket statements...because your kids and my kids (should the Lord bless me with) and ALL of our kids are worth it.

Gary, you brought up and stressed two things here which are crucial and like S_wilk I would encourage IWDHM to press for more fervently than ANYTHING else and that is filling the biologist spots..and letting them re-evaluate even more so than the DNR is doing now - AMEN! Also you brought up a scientific survey...I know no group can afford this or accomplish it but you could press the DNR to send out a massive survey ONLY to those whom say have purchased a license (or are lifetime holders) the last 3-5 years...this would truly be an amazing way for the DNR to tap into the grassroot hunters across this state and yet be THEIR own survey, not an assumed bias one from any organization.

As someone who supports the stripped down mission of IWDHM that would be the things I'd say fight for! Both of those things can and will prove your points about depredation tags being a terrible thing and quotas being too high should they be as bad as you folks have stated they are.


I would also not paint such an ill picture of those whom are involved in habitat improvement for any level or degree as bias or invested and are happy the herd is suffering as they can claim to change it for the hunter should they hire them for "x" amount of dollars.

These folks in this line of work see a lot more of the state and tap into a network of hunters/habitat folks that can be of serious benefit to gaining a pulse on localized deer herds. I know of a couple habitat guys that do it for a living and they have clients suffering to see deer despite major efforts habitat wise...good honest habitat guys would never say it is a magic pill that creates deer...it can draw and hold deer, but if there are no deer to draw or hold they're idiots to claim it will work.

Blessings on your endeavor Gary, I pray your drive doesn't slow and your mind never grows weary of learning more and more.

YES! YES! YES! A MAILED survey would be HUGE! They have the ability to unique ID each and can make them simple scan tron style...the issue I'm sure is cost but I'd support any group fighting for this!

A survey will only ever hold true weight before the DNR or NRC if it comes from them!

YES! YES! YES! A MAILED survey would be HUGE! They have the ability to unique ID each and can make them simple scan tron style...the issue I'm sure is cost but I'd support any group fighting for this!

A survey will only ever hold true weight before the DNR or NRC if it comes from them!

Tynimiller I have been part of the old Mail surveys back in the 80's the response rate was a few Hundred mailed back in ..... They asked question like how many deer did you see ... how many foxes yotes birds and such and I do believe the DNR Did away with Mail Surveys.... But the Idea of tying it to your License when you buy it online or if you Register For a Hunt might be an Idea that would not take much for out IDNR to Do ... So there is a Solution to the one idea.

Of course there can be and usually are questions surrounding every survey ..... but if a survey qualifies as scientific or not is not one of them.

They either are .... or they arent.

I thought it was a great idea to try and get the DNR to fill the positions prior to lobbying for quota changes ..... but that bubble was quickly burst.

Now that I know the idea is to get a scientific survey and feedback of the grassroots deer hunters across our fine state before lobbying for changes I think that is a pretty decent idea. Not as good as filling the positions first but not terrible.

Looking forward to seeing the survey and the results.

S wilk ... If there is time for the 14 Biologist positions to be filled and the Head Deer Biologist we would Love that to Happen all Deer Hunters WOULD.... But the Problem is the Government is Holding Funds from your IDNR to do there Job That being said does the Wild DEER HERD have the time to go through the Fight of waiting on Human Beings to Agree??? If you think so Great fight that Fight .... Then write you appropriate State Rep and Ask them To Give the Money to IDNR so they can do there Job for not Just Deer But all Wildlife. Just my thought instead of writing & complaining on here COMPLAIN TO THE STATE OF INDIANA AND STATE REPS... And if you are doing that Great where is it Getting you?

Just trying to get behind the IWDHM Quincy... Gotta figure out what they are doing first. Been a hard road to follow so far but by golly I think I got it now.

Exactly and you can't disregard a future survey done by them based on past ones...the survey to be pushed for would be a better one, one which attempts to truly get a pulse on things.

The way the licenses are structured, it allows one person to take over 300 deer or close to that...there should be a total limit as most other states do... realizing that no one does take anywhere's close to that, but like the 20 deer that Pav had mentioned can be taken in his county and in my County(Porter), it does give the impression of over abundance, when in fact there isnt...Indiana's herd is dwindling and as Ive said in the past, I hope educating hunters to start passing on the antlerless herd and let some Does walk will take hold...

Gary,

I've read many of your posts and I get the frustration, but what is your group trying to specifically accomplish?

For example....

I know your group is unhappy with the bonus antlerless permit numbers. So what would your group's realistic goal be for that program?

How would your group deal with the fact that without purchasing a single bonus antlerless tag, a hunter can kill 4 deer in Indiana. Is that an issue for you guys?

If your group wants to limit licenses, how would you propose to make up the lost revenue?

How about season length and dates? Would your group like to change anything there?

How about equipment? Is equipment choice an issue or is your group less concerned with choice and more concerned with tag limits?

How about shooting buttons and fawns? I know it's legal, but I've never done it, nor do I agree with it. Which leads me to my next question?

I've read that your group isn't a fan of depredation tags and would like to see their use moved out of the Summer to help preserve more fawns. How would your group try to make that happen?

Thanks for your time and if you would rather, you can PM me with your responses.

I'm not sure that taking on "world hunger" in regard to the various issues around deer management and DNR support is a good thing to do. Too much on a plate makes for messy things. Plus, getting into the weeds right away on all these various issues is simply crazy because it causes too much of a distraction and makes a messy message that the DNR and legislators just don't appreciate. I get all these questions, butI still believe the discussion and goals should be focused on one or two issues and then as time goes forward you look to address other issues, even though they all may be good concerns. If I was in the new group, I'd simply answer many of these questions with "don't know yet" because again, taking on world hunger is just not a smart thing to do in my opinion. Plus, times are fluid anymore and once a group says "this" and then later changes to "that", all heck breaks lose.

If a group is looking for potential members, IMHO they need to let people know where they stand on certain issues.

If they can't or won't answer, then I would have to pass.....

If they can't or won't answer, then I would have to pass..... [/QB][/QUOTE]

Totally understand. That is why there is seldom any group that can satisfy everyone and for those groups that try to take on a multitude of issues at one time, they tend to fail. If I were they, i'd probably ask what is the two or three most significant issues in your view.

But, your point is a good one to further assess. Generally, hunters or sportsmen take the approach that if a group can't satisfy all their individual wishes, then they wouldn't join that group. Fair enough. But, in the meantime, sportsmen suffer drastically because there is no influential group and membership tends to lack and who wins, the legislators, private industry and anyone and everyone except the sportsmen.

Well Said Delany ....... I think they have Stated Many times there main concern IS THIS
IWDHM is committed to advocating for the health of our deer herd and the preservation of our hunting heritage for future generations.
Pretty well sums it up to me
If you aren't liking that statement and want more so be it..... But they Keep saying it all the Time and as a Sportsmen / Hunter I for one Like it

Delaney I'm not looking for 100% agreement, but I can't commit to an organization if all the information I have to go on is..."IWDHM is committed to advocating for the health of our deer herd and the preservation of our hunting heritage for future generations."

We all want that. It's the how, that seems to be the sticking point.

I think we are all committed to those things....unfortunately those words can mean different things to different people.

Even if folks agree on what those words mean they very well may disagree on how to best achieve those goals.

When different things are said and then changed it just adds to the confusion. We want to fill the positions...no we want to make recommendations based on science....no we want to skip the science and start writing letters now. Tough to figure out what to believe.

And that would be my point. Until this group offers specifics, I can't make up my mind to support them or not.

It's just that simple.

Was responding to the post above yours....

I have a personal statement too..."I want what's best for our deer herd". Can't disagree with that, right?

Follow me. Follow me.

I see what you did there....and I'm a fan.

If your following the page with a like are you considered a member , aperson you are representing or what how many members that sent in info ??